Balancing?

[progamer 14]

I was looking at the feedback tracker and I saw multiple posts on balancing weapon and vehicles, how weapons like rockets and grenades take no skill and need nerfs.

I am at a loss for words right now, people need to understand this is a Militery simulator! This should be very clear to people. If anything, things could become more realistic.

Edit:

Since this post has become really popular I will link these two tickets for making the game better:

Flooding land Like Arma 2 ACR: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9834

Make helicopter interact with water more realistically: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8468

Edited July 2, 2013 by ProGamer

[Alwarren 2766]

I am very worried about this issue. Real-life characteristics of a rifle are being changed to make the performance similar to the BLUEFOR variant. For balancing.

This is WRONG. All kinds of wrong. I already was getting nervous when I saw that there is someone hired for balancing, but this is really getting troublesome. If you have to bend real-life characteristics of equipment to balance something, you are doing it wrong. Using the same ammunition types on both sides is one thing, but intentionally making rifles carbon copies with different looks...

Please, BIS. Remember that this game's engine is called something with "Real" in its name.

[EDcase 87]

In my opinion sniper weapons need to be nerfed otherwise this game is going to turn into a camping sniperfest.

[byku 13]

All.. we need is wind simulation mate ;)

[Varanon 892]

In my opinion sniper weapons need to be nerfed otherwise this game is going to turn into a camping sniperfest.

Sigh... sorry if I invoke the evil word, but when has Arma become another Battlefield or Call of Duty ? It used to be a milsim, now it becomes a shooter, it seems

Edit:

Yes, I know, it's a clash of interests.. probably the COOP side vs. the PvP/TvT side. Problem is, TvT needs to be "balanced", COOP needs to be ralistic. But Arma has always been about "realistic", not "balanced". Clash of interest.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Varanon

[liquidpinky 11]

All.. we need is wind simulation mate ;)

Aye, balancing through the use of realism.

BF3 wookies will give up and go home after a while when real skill is required.

[Varanon 892]

All.. we need is wind simulation mate ;)

And wind strength beyond [10,10] !

[Variable 322]

I am very worried about this issue. Real-life characteristics of a rifle are being changed to make the performance similar to the BLUEFOR variant. For balancing.

This is WRONG. All kinds of wrong. I already was getting nervous when I saw that there is someone hired for balancing, but this is really getting troublesome. If you have to bend real-life characteristics of equipment to balance something, you are doing it wrong. Using the same ammunition types on both sides is one thing, but intentionally making rifles carbon copies with different looks...

Please, BIS. Remember that this game's engine is called something with "Real" in its name.

My concerns exactly. Reality is not balanced last time I checked.

Now we have Raedek, a developer(!), stating that a rifle rate of fire was tweaked-up due to balancing issues. Why? Why?

Since when armies are balanced? Why do we need this balancing? I'm sorry, but the only motivation I can think of is making Arma a deathmatch oriented game, and that makes me very worried.

[EDcase 87]

Yeah, we want more realism than the 'other' fps games but if you have no 'balancing' at all then you'll have PvP games where EVERYONE will join the strongest side and PvP for this GAME will die.

That could be what kept PvP low in ARMA2.

My concern is that snipers will just camp the PvP battles from far away and kill the infantry combat of this game. Wind would help but they will still be impossible to hunt down with these ridiculously powerful semi-auto rifles.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[Harzach 2507]

In my opinion sniper weapons need to be nerfed otherwise this game is going to turn into a camping sniperfest.

No. I have nothing against certain popular mission types, but going down that rabbit-hole to suit one sector of the player base is a fundamentally bad idea. Balance is something that should be left to the mission-maker.

[nimrod123 11]

Yeah, we want more realism than the 'other' fps games but if you have no 'balancing' at all then you'll have PvP games where EVERYONE will join the strongest side and PvP for this GAME will die.

That could be what kept PvP low in ARMA2.

and as was said during a simliar thread for ARMA2, its up to the map maker to balance by other means, such as the opfor in ARMA 2 had far better AA, so BLUFOR had to either get more air assests, or a better postion to start from

thats the kind of balance i want, not blufor is just a diffrent skin of OPFOR

[MissileMoose 10]

While I do like the overall feeling of Arma 3, I too am concerned about the direction in which the game is being taken.

The quote "This is war" from the menu screen must be taken with a pinch of salt, as Arma resembles only a tiny fraction of what real war actually is like, if at all. The main thing which drives my enthusiasm for BIS is that they seem(ed) to work towards making the experience as authentic and realistic as possible, to live up to their name, unlike other developers.

Realism and balance do not go together, fact. War is not fair. Maybe BIS is trying to do the impossible, to please both sides? Hopefully my faith will be restored by their future decisions, after all, it's still an Alpha.

--

If a game was completely realistic it wouldn't be fun. After all, being 6ft underground is not fun. The message which I'm trying to convey, is that they should aim towards playable authenticity, without balancing. /Opinion.

Edited June 6, 2013 by MissileMoose

[Harzach 2507]

Yeah, we want more realism than the 'other' fps games but if you have no 'balancing' at all then you'll have PvP games where EVERYONE will join the strongest side and PvP for this GAME will die.

That could be what kept PvP low in ARMA2.

I agree, but again, balancing should be done at mission level, not asset level. One team has better assets? Give the other team more assets or a better position. This isn't brain surgery, but let's not resort to the bad plastic surgery that is the "nerf/buff" cycle.

[pettka 694]

I am very worried about this issue. Real-life characteristics of a rifle are being changed to make the performance similar to the BLUEFOR variant. For balancing.

This is WRONG. All kinds of wrong. I already was getting nervous when I saw that there is someone hired for balancing, but this is really getting troublesome. If you have to bend real-life characteristics of equipment to balance something, you are doing it wrong. Using the same ammunition types on both sides is one thing, but intentionally making rifles carbon copies with different looks...

Please, BIS. Remember that this game's engine is called something with "Real" in its name.

The issue has been noted and it's probably going to be looked on, Raedek's comment was right for time being, but we are still developing and enhancing the game :icon_twisted:

[blu3sman 11]

Yeah, we want more realism than the 'other' fps games but if you have no 'balancing' at all then you'll have PvP games where EVERYONE will join the strongest side and PvP for this GAME will die.

That could be what kept PvP low in ARMA2.

My concern is that snipers will just camp the PvP battles from far away and kill the infantry combat of this game. Wind would help but they will still be impossible to hunt down with these ridiculously powerful semi-auto rifles.

Clarify, under pvp you mean objective based missions with teamplay OR random wall-on-wall deathmatches?

[EDcase 87]

and as was said during a simliar thread for ARMA2, its up to the map maker to balance by other means, such as the opfor in ARMA 2 had far better AA, so BLUFOR had to either get more air assests, or a better postion to start from

thats the kind of balance i want, not blufor is just a diffrent skin of OPFOR

Yep, a valid concept but it didn't work out too well though...

Balancing in a mission is VERY hard to get right

'Insurgency' was a good example where there were few BluFor agains loads of AI and human OpFor.

BUT BluFor would camp with scoped rifles on hilltops and OpFor died so often that they just left...

Now you could say, 'they weren't skilled enough at evasion and sneak tactics' but at the end of the day it hurts the PvP scene...

Plus that kind of mission balancing limits the possiblities. What about 'CTI', Warfare, etc. Those just aren't possible if you have teams with unbalanced firepower/weaponry. Again, that's what hurt ARMA2 PvP

There must be some kind of compromise and balance doesn't have to mean that every weapon is matched. Perhaps one side has a certain powerful weapon and the other side has a different strength to counter that weapon.

Its a hard thing to get right.

Clarify, under pvp you mean objective based missions with teamplay OR random wall-on-wall deathmatches?

Yeah, I'm talking organized team PvP.

Deathmatches are for the kids 'other' fps games where they don't know how to team play. (Its fun to a point but that kind game is easy to balance with same weapons etc)

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[Harzach 2507]

Yep, a valid concept but it didn't work out too well though...

'Insurgency' was a good example where there were few BluFor agains loads of AI and human OpFor.

BUT BluFor would camp with scoped rifles on hilltops and OpFor died so often that they just left...

Now you could say, 'they weren't skilled enough at evasion and sneak tactics' but at the end of the day it hurts the PvP scene...

There must be some kind of compromise and balance doesn't have to mean that every weapon is matched. Perhaps one side has a certain powerful weapon and the other side has a different strength to counter that weapon.

Its a hard thing to get right.

I'm talking organized team PvP. Deathmatches are for the kids 'other' fps games with no team play.

Any round of Insurgency where all of the BLU members are sitting on mountain tops is the definition of "unorganized". But I think we're on the same page here. Balance in Arma is all about mission design and player organization, which is why the best PvP really only happens within the larger communities.

[dmarkwick 261]

Guys the reasons have been laid out, it's an AI issue. The balance has been implemented to prevent exploit of an AI weakness, and as such it's going to be in the vanilla game release to make the game play properly as designed.

Now, lets get pragmatic.

What "realism" group here plays any version of ArmA without enhancement mods? Any at all? If all this takes to fix is a config tweak - then that's what will happen. It's practically why modding exists.

[Varanon 892]

not blufor is just a diffrent skin of OPFOR

Indeed. From what I saw/heard in the life stream, it looks as if the green army (independants) will also be a fully army like red and blue. Traditionally, green was the resistance type army, basically the underdog that is caught between the big ones

[EDcase 87]

Guys the reasons have been laid out, it's an AI issue. The balance has been implemented to prevent exploit of an AI weakness, and as such it's going to be in the vanilla game release to make the game play properly as designed.

Now, lets get pragmatic.

What "realism" group here plays any version of ArmA without enhancement mods? Any at all? If all this takes to fix is a config tweak - then that's what will happen. It's practically why modding exists.

Er... AI has nothing to do with balancing for PvP?

Whats the point of a sandbox game if missions always have to rely on larger forces balancing out superior weaponry...

...And I would love to play ARMA WITHOUT having to rely on loads of mods and scripts to fix things. They will splinter the player base and can cause all kinds of errors, conflics and slowdows.

I'm not saying to get rid of mods of course. Just to have a playable vanilla game as priority and mods can then tweak the game to particular tastes.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase

[Varanon 892]

Guys the reasons have been laid out, it's an AI issue. The balance has been implemented to prevent exploit of an AI weakness

Uhm, where has this been laid out ?

[dmarkwick 261]

Aah, sorry I thought this thread was a result of this discussion :)

I came here straight from there and carried on the thread... :)

Edited June 6, 2013 by DMarkwick

[metalcraze 290]

Balancing in a mission is VERY hard to get right

That's no excuse to ruin the game by making it no different from that certain popular crap where every single gun is a carbon copy of another.

Plus that kind of mission balancing limits the possiblities. What about 'CTI', Warfare, etc. Those just aren't possible if you have teams with unbalanced firepower/weaponry. Again, that's what hurt ARMA2 PvP

And in ArmA2 PvP was all Warfare right? No other PvP possible?

Its a hard thing to get right.

Not hard in real life. Russian and US arms were never balanced copies of each other. Tell Afghanistan and Iraq about balance where US is incapable of dealing with insurgents that have no drones or thermal for more than a decade now.

That arcadey kind of balance needs to stay away from ArmA.

There should never be any compromises. Compromises killed Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell. Compromises are already hurting ArmA3.

Ironically Splinter Cell CT had a PvP game mode where sides were completely different and the spy side could never go 1v1 versus mercs in an open combat, having to rely on stealth and ambushes instead. Somehow nobody cried that it was hurting PvP.

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[Alwarren 2766]

The issue has been noted and it's probably going to be looked on, Raedek's comment was right for time being, but we are still developing and enhancing the game :icon_twisted:

Thanks for the reply. That is more reassuring, but the saying goes, if you don't complain in time, you lose the right to complain later.

I am no expert on the subject matter, just your average player that has been with the series since OFP and who also plays "that other game". As such, while I don't have any authority on the topic, I still hope you get to reading what I am about to say here.

Balancing can take two paths. It can either go the Warcraft 2 way with a number of sides that are essentially copies of each other with different skins, or the Starcraft way of making sides equally strong but ultimately different from each other. Take Tanks for example. One nation might go for slow, heavy armored tanks while another side might go for lighter tanks with more mobility and precision. This type of balancing can be done in such a way that both sides are not copies of each other. Each has their own doctrine of warfare, and the balance is in the way that players use them. Obviously the lighter tanks will have trouble in a direct shootout, but OTOH they will have a much better chance at outmaneuvering the enemy. This kind of balance is more difficult to achieve and demands more insight from the players, but it sets it apart from the other type of game were all tanks are basically the same.

Another thing I worry about is focus. Obviously a game like BF3 is completely focused on the Team vs. Team aspect with very little variation. With this sort of focus, the balancing in that game will always be "fairer" than in a game that tries to cater for a much wider variety in gameplay styles, as is the case in Arma. I do think it is fatal to try to cater for one group (especially the group that is already enjoying BF3-like gameplay) while at the same time trying to keep the balance for other styles (of course, this is coming from a guy that plays exclusively co-op, as in co-op missions). IMO the balance for the TvT modes cannot be achieved in such a way as it is in Battlefield. It has to be in the way the mission is set up. The mission/game mode maker has to do the balancing, even if that means to have more slots for one side, or restrict availability of weapons. For example, it could allow two snipers on one side and only one on the other, or a similar setup.

What I am worried about with the current direction of development (which has only gotten deeper after the last live stream) is that by trying to appeal to too many different play styles, the end result might not appeal to any of those. I think that was what killed things like Dragon Rising, which tried to place itself between the hardcore and casual shooter experience and in the end didn't appeal to either. You mustn't forget that Arma is different from all the other games out there in that it is primarily a sandbox where players and mission makers design and develop their own "type" of game. Without Arma's sandbox aspect, DayZ would not exist - I cannot see something like this emerge from any other game on the market. And that is exactly why Arma is special, and exactly why that aspect of Arma needs to be maintained.

Thanks for reading :)

Edited June 6, 2013 by Alwarren

[EDcase 87]

Good post Alwarren:

But referring to your example of the tanks. In ARMA there are so many vehicles and weapons that even if you had 'matched' tanks the mission maker could still but a heavy MBT on one side and smaller, faster vehicles on the other...

If weapons were balanced it would still allow for asymetrical warfare by the mission maker restricting weapons, scopes, vehicles etc.

...and you could still have the completely balanced BF3 style conquer the island or capture bases (on a much larger scale of course)

That would give ARMA3 the FULL sandbox scope.

Edited June 6, 2013 by EDcase